A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,”according to a studypublished June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found.

“In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”

The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2017 was +0.21 deg. C, down from the May, 2017 value of +0.44 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series.

The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 18 months are:

Western European efforts to isolate President Trump for rejecting the Paris climate change agreement appear to be faltering as leaders gather for a summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, at the end of the week.

The gulf between Mr. Trump’s worldview and that of most European leaders on topics from trade to immigration will be on display in the coming days. But nowhere is the difference as stark as it is on climate change, which Mr. Trump has mocked as a hoax.

In announcing last month that the United States would withdraw from the Paris agreement, the president portrayed the pact signed by 194 nations to cut planet-warming emissions as a bad deal for America.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has cast the agenda of the Group of 20 summit meeting as a stark contrast to Mr. Trump’s America First approach, particularly on climate change. She has called the Paris accord “irreversible,” and diplomats have expressed hope that the 19 other countries would make it clear that their support is unwavering. Environmental activists, hoping to highlight America’s status as an outlier, also are pushing hard for a united front against Mr. Trump.

In recent days, however, those aiming to isolate the United States on climate issues have softened their language to say they hope an “overwhelming majority” embrace the Paris agreement. Saudi Arabia has indicated it is unlikely to climb on board and Russia, Turkey and Indonesia are sending mixed signals about how forcefully they will declare their support for the Paris deal.

“Huge efforts are underway now to make sure as many countries as possible hold the line and compensate for America’s withdrawal by redoubling their efforts. How far this goes, I have my doubts,” said Dennis Snower, president of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a leading German think tank advising the European Commissionahead of the summit meeting.

“It doesn’t look good,” Mr. Snower said. “It does not look like we are going to have 19 countries and the United States against.”

The U.S. natural gas market has rebalanced with higher prices steadying production while reducing demand from electricity generators and making room for increased exports.

Higher prices have averted the stock crunch many analysts feared in 2017 as a result of rising exports and the start up of a large number of new gas-fired combined cycle power plants.

During the first six months of 2017, prices for next-month delivery at Henry Hub were almost $1 per million British thermal units or 46 percent higher than in the first half of 2016.

Gas prices paid by electricity producers were up $1 per million British thermal units or 39 percent in the first four months of the year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Power producers generated 349 Terawatt-hours of electricity from natural gas between January and April and used 2,611 billion cubic feet of gas in the process (“Electric Power Monthly”, EIA, June 2017).

But gas-fired generation was down 15 percent compared with the same period in 2016 while the volume of gas consumed fell by 14 percent.

By contrast, total electricity generation from all sources was down by less than 2 percent compared with the prior year.

Coal-fired power plants were the main beneficiaries from higher gas prices, increasing their electricity generation by almost 7 percent.

Coal-fired plants operated at an average of 49 percent of their maximum output between January and April compared with 44 percent in the same period in 2016.

By contrast, gas-fired combined-cycle units operated at 48 percent of their maximum output, down from 53 percent in 2016.

Since 2001 Australia has had an active policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that subsidises wind power, solar power and, strangely, heat pumps. It also levies penalties of $65/MWh on those retailers who have slipped behind on their renewable energy obligations. This is more than the average $50/MWh spot price from 2000 to 2014.

In 2015/16 $2,968 million was spent on subsidies for renewable energy. This equates to 30% of the wholesale cost of all the electricity generated. Retail electricity prices have doubled since 2007 and now are about 20 US cents /kWh even though the demand has hardly changed. The main reason for the cost increase federal and state government regulations and subsidies boosting the uptake of wind and solar power.

In 2015, the estimated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was about 15 million tons giving a cost of $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide avoided. This is about 10 times the generally accepted cost of carbon dioxide.

So what are the prospects for the future?

South Australia has large amounts of wind and solar power and is the leader in renewable energy. A few months ago a storm caused a total blackout of the state that took out one transmission line. Before the widespread adoption of wind power, the loss of this transmission line would not have caused major problems. A large amount of wind power was generating at the time and the power system stability was entirely reliant on a transmission line connecting to the Victorian coal-fired power stations. The system disturbance caused by the loss of the line caused wind farms to shut down: this, plus the failure of the load shedding system to operate in the time available, overloaded the interconnector which then tripped and caused a total blackout.

Another problem that wind power has brought to the state is that wind power output put over peak demand is typically around about 10% of installed capacity.

So additional generation is needed to make up for the shortfall in wind. So they have installed open cycle gas turbines and large numbers of small diesel generators that are inefficient, add to the cost and generate carbon dioxide.

If the amount of renewable energy in the other states increases and they continue to shut down thermal power stations that can generate continuously and reliably and stabilise the power system, South Australian type problems are inevitable and will steadily increase.

This paper examines whether renewable energy can match the economic productivity of the current, largely fossil energy supply and the consequences if it cannot.

Introduction

In recent years the energy sector has accounted for about 9 per cent of global GDP, with the implication that the return on energy investment in the world economy is, approximately and as an average, about 11:1. In other words, the energy produced with 9 per cent of the world’s economic activity is enough to power the whole world economy, from profligate energy consumption in the US through to fuel poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.

The bulk of global energy has been and still is provided by fossil fuels, which have stood at a remarkably constant 87 per cent of supply since 1990. In fact, the narrowly defined energy returns on investment for individual fossil fuel technologies are far higher than the global figure, being of the order of 50:1 for coal and gas plants and 70:1 for nuclear reactors. Only when combined with the low values for traditional biomass and all the societal externalities does the effective overall value fall to the 11:1 cited above.

This paper examines whether renewable energy can match the economic productivity of the current, largely fossil, energy supply and the consequences if it cannot.

Scene setting: past and present trends

The number of people in the global (lower) middle class has doubled in the last 20 years: from 1.5 billion in 1995 to 3 billion out of 7 billion in 2015. Most people would hope that this trend will continue, lifting the whole of the global population out of grinding poverty by the time the world population peaks at over 10 billion at or beyond about 2065–75.

During the same period, 1995-2015, total world demand for energy has increased by 40 per cent, because a middle-class person uses approximately 3.5 times as much energy per day as a person in an urban slum or a rural hovel. The burgeoning middle class in China alone can explain 40 per cent of this growth.

The forward projection is that by 2035 there will be 5 billion middle-class people out of a world population of 8 billion, and that demand for energy will rise by another 40 per cent. However, renewables are expected to supply only a small part of that additional demand; well over 80 per cent will still come from fossil fuels.

On top of that advance of the poor into the middle class, those currently in the middle class will become rich, with access to advanced mobility, communications, healthcare, diet, education, and so on, as described above. The working hypothesis here is that poorer people will aspire eventually to enjoy a European though not a North American standard of living in that distant future. Europeans use about seven times as much energy per person per day as their predecessors did in 1800, an amount comparable with energy consumption of the poor today. I will therefore assume that a 7:1 ratio applies in the transition from poor to rich, rather than the figure of 3.5 for transition from poor to middle class. Rich people use twice as much energy per person per day as the (lower) middle class.

There are no World Bank estimates of the future growth of the global rich, and this growth rate could be a parameter for a fuller analysis. However, for the purposes of this initial discussion of renewable energy, it is assumed that there will be no growth in the number of rich people, which is obviously a conservative estimate. To the extent that the rich population does grow, the conclusions drawn here will need to be strengthened further, as described below. […]

It would seem, therefore, that to the extent that more people will want to become rich, the world will need more fossil and nuclear fuels, not less. There is one way to try to square this circle and that is to redesign the world to be more energy efficient, and for those who are rich and middle class to halve their per capita daily energy consumption by changing their lifestyle, but, again, this an unlikely prospect.

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website atwww.thegwpf.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.

Please note - if you use the new REPLY button for comments, please start your comments AFTER the code. Also, the Blogger comment limit is 4,096 characters, so to post something longer, you may wish to use Part 1, Part 2 etc.

Subscribe To

Welcome to Breaking Views

Breaking Views brings you expert commentary on topical political and policy issues. The views expressed are those of the author alone. The blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, an independent public policy think tank at NZCPR.com - register for the free weekly NZCPR newsletterHERE.